The period between the 7th and 11th centuries was a time of transition in many ways, not the least of which was a shift in accessibility of divorce. In the 7th century, the ending of a marriage by mutual consent was perfectly acceptable.* By the 11th century, divorce had become permissible only in extreme circumstances. The transition between the two was marked by political and religious tension and strife. The shift itself happened gradually. The first thing to go was divorce by mutual consent. One had to have a “serious” reason like adultery, incest, impotence, or the desire to take religious vows in order to end a marriage. Then came the restrictions on remarriage after divorce. A big part of Lothar II’s problem was that he needed a divorce that would allow him to marry again. By the 10th century, only incest, non-consummation, prior marriage, or prior religious vows were valid reasons to end a marriage. On a very general level, one could say that there were two sides in this: the Church and the nobility. The Church tended to push for the idea that marriage was permanent and entirely under its jurisdiction. The nobility, on the other hand, wanted to keep their right to divorce as suited their political needs.**

Charles the Bald is particularly notable for taking whichever side in this debate suited his political aims in the moment.[Carlo Calvo, 10th century, Psalter, source: Wikimedia Commons]

The thing is, it wasn’t actually so clear-cut as that. While each of these groups tended towards one opinion or the other, individuals tended to make their arguments based on immediate political necessity. Alcuin, who lived in Charlemagne’s court, strongly admonished the nobles of Northumbria for divorcing their wives and said nothing about the Holy Roman Emperor doing the same. Charles the Bald condemned Lothar II’s wish for a divorce at the same time as he forced his son to leave his own wife and marry someone else. While this debate had a lot of theology and ideology behind it, politics were what defined changing restrictions on divorce in these centuries. *This doesn’t mean there weren’t obstacles to it, but these lay more in the will of one’s family and one’s spouse rather than the culture and the Church. ** We almost never hear about the opinions of anyone outside these groups in large part because this was such a political debate. This possibly also meant that the lower classes in any given area were more likely the freedom to divorce for longer, since those most strongly pushing for reform were less interested in them.